itchhh wrote:Therein lies the problem, what you consider to be a civil ceremony is considered a religious ceremony by the vast majority of people.

Many legal rights are based on marriage. Therefore, it is a civil ceremony. Maybe the best solution would be to let churches do marriages, which would have no legal standing, and let the gov't do civil unions, for both gays and straights, which would give legal rights.

Jeff, perhaps you are unaware of all the many, many legal rights that go with marriage, but not with civil unions.

I understand what you are saying. It's not just a matter of terminology, since marriage is referred to in many laws.

Why not let churches do religious marriage ceremonies and let the government do legal marriage ceremonies?

That makes sense. The key is that government marriage, which conveys those legal rights, should be available to both gays and straights.